2016 (9) TMI 48 - HC - Service Tax

Condonation of delay evasion of service tax SEZ demand of tax and penalty under section 77 of the Finance Act 1994 delay of 152 days in filing the appeal documents including tax paid challans missing in the course of change of work due to change of tax consultant Held that - there is a genuine difficulty on the part of the petitioner and the reason which has been assigned was beyond the control of the applicant and it appears that there is no malafide intention on the part of the petitioner. The reason assigned in the application found to be just and proper and sufficient enough to condone the delay petition allowed delay condoned decided in favor of petitioner.

Summary

Issues:
Challenging the legality and validity of order by Central Excise Service Tax Tribunal; Delay in filing appeal; Condonation of delay; Genuine difficulty faced by petitioner; Gross negligence on part of petitioner.

Analysis:
The petitioner challenged the order passed by the Central Excise Service Tax Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench, which did not condone the delay of 152 days in filing the appeal. The petitioner, a proprietary concern, had received a show cause notice for non-payment of service tax. Despite the petitioner's contentions regarding exemption under the service tax law and SEZ Act, the authority confirmed the demand for service tax along with penalties.

During the appeal process, the petitioner explained the delay due to missing documents, specifically tax paid challans necessary for the appeal. The Tribunal, however, did not condone the delay citing gross negligence on the petitioner's part. The petitioner filed a Special Civil Application challenging this decision.

The petitioner's advocate argued that the delay was beyond the petitioner's control and requested condonation to ensure a fair adjudication of the appeal on its merits. On the other hand, the respondent's counsel supported the Tribunal's decision, alleging gross negligence on the petitioner's part.

After hearing both parties, the Court found the petitioner's explanation genuine and beyond their control. The Court noted the absence of malafide intent or deliberate delay, leading to the decision to quash the Tribunal's order and direct the appeal to be heard and disposed of promptly.

The Court clarified that its decision did not express any opinion on the merits of the case, leaving it open for the parties to present their arguments before the Tribunal. Ultimately, the petition was allowed, and the matter was disposed of accordingly.